Professor David Shearman, MD, is Emeritus Professor of Medicine, University of Adelaide, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the Universitys Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences and Law School. Professor Shearman was an Assessor for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Assessment Report and the Fourth Assessment Report. (1)

Shearman has penned several books on global warming, such as Climate Change as a Crisis in World Civilization: Why We Must Totally Transform How We Live and The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy. His argument is that overpopulation and industrialization are causing an ecological disaster which requires a total change of lifestyle for everyone on the planet. As democracy isnt up to the challenge, an authoritarian government must (obviously) be imposed to save us from ourselves.

Lets take a look at one of those books, The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, which Shearman co-authored with Joseph Wayne Smith. (2)

The book was written as part of a series sponsored by the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy. The Pell Center was established at Salve Regina University in Newport, Rhode Island, by an Act of the United States Congress on September 28, 1996, to honor Democrat Senator Claiborne Pell. (3)

The introduction, by the director of the Pell Center, provides a handy summary of the argument contained in the book:

In short, Shearman and Smith argue that liberal democracy - considered sacrosanct in modern societies - is an impediment to finding ecologically sustainable solutions for the planet [intro. p.xi]

Moving to the preface, the authors demand that the reader be prepared to reassess their notions of what is or is not acceptable, and what actions tackling global warming may require. They ask the reader if they are committed to the well-being of future generations:

If so, are you prepared to change your lifestyle now? Are you prepared to see society and its governance change if this is a necessary solution? [preface. p. xiv]

You see, apparently democracy is simply not natural. As the authors put it: we argue that authoritarianism is the natural state of humanity. They propose the formation of an elite warrior leadership to battle for the future of the earth [p.xvi]. Can you see where this is going yet?

The authors recognize that religion plays a big part in many peoples lives, and they discuss whether Islam or Christianity fits better with the authoritarian government they see as essential, before deciding that there is a better option:

However, they are not the only contenders for providing social glue for the masses. Although too much of the natural world will be destroyed for civilization to continue in its present form, some biodiversity will still exist . . . It is not impossible that from the green movement and aspects of the new age movement a religious alternative to Christianity and Islam will emerge. And it is not too difficult to imagine what shape this new religion could take. One would require a transcendent God who could punish and reward - because humans seem to need a carrot and a stick. [p. 127]

Frankly, I find this kind of thing terrifying. All the talk of necessary solutions and a new Green religion that would provide social glue for the masses - are we back in the 1930s?

But it gets worse. I know, you must be asking yourselves how much more fascistic it can get. The answer is a lot more:

Chapter 9 will describe in more detail how we might begin the process of constructing such real universities to train the ecowarriors to do battle against the enemies of life. We must accomplish this education with the same dedication used to train its warriors. As in Sparta, these natural elites will be especially trained from childhood to meet the challenging problems of our times. [p. 134]

To combat global warming effectively, these natural elites will require a government capable of taking the necessary action to combat climate change:

Government in the future will be based upon . . . a supreme office of the biosphere. The office will comprise specially trained philosopher/ecologists. These guardians will either rule themselves or advise an authoritarian government of policies based on their ecological training and philosophical sensitivities. These guardians will be specially trained for the task. [p. 134]

Worrying stuff, coming from a professor whose previous book (which the Australian government helped to promote) argued that humanity was a malignant eco-tumour and an ecological cancer. (4)

I could go on quoting from the book, but Im sure youve already got the gist of whats being proposed here: Global warming presents such a massive and immediate danger that democracy no longer cuts it, and an authoritarian ecological government of natural elites will have to be found to replace it, as well as a new green religion to help provide social glue for the masses.

Posted on a blog somewhere, such a plan would probably elicit a visit from the anti-terrorist division of the police. But the fact that it comes from a professor at a major university, who works for the IPCC and was written at the behest of a serious academic institute, founded by Act of Congress, means that the author need not be afraid.

The authors are exactly right. Only an authoritarian, more likely totalitarian, government could successfully impose such controls.

(Moderate) controls on greenhouse gases might be acceptable to a sufficiently brainwashed electorate, as long as things are humming along nicely financially. Once the controls start to have their inevitable effect on the economy, forget it.

Plato should sue the guy for plagiarism. It's either satire or particularly adolescent science fiction.

I've never yet read a screed from a two-bit chicken-plucker who didn't just know that the would would be a better place under the august leadership of two-bit chicken-pluckers. The real scam is a con man who can convince the chicken-plucker that he is, or will be in charge. That'd be Marx.

Karl Popper dealt with this sort of thing in The Open Society And Its Enemies. Highly recommended.

One thing that I've been thinking of lately: if we are going into a regime of global cooling, what happens if this has a strongly negative effect on global crop harvests? What happens if the price of food goes up to the point where food is unaffordable for Third World populations?

We may find ourselves in a lifeboat situation where there just isn't enough food to go around, and the Third World is unwilling to quietly accept mass starvation.

18
posted on 01/06/2011 6:19:49 PM PST
by PapaBear3625
("It is only when we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything" -- Fight Club)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.